@Foofie,
Quote:The argument about contraception is specious, in my opinion, since it can be extrapolated to include every time a woman decides to masturbate, rather than have a man send some sperm in search of her egg.
If you cannot distinguish between masturbation, which is totally unrelated to conception, and the use of contraception to prevent pregnancy, you shouldn't participate in a discussion of this topic until you have learned some basic biology.
My question about your views regarding contraception was directly related to your views on abortion--and, if you are logically consistent, you should oppose contraception use by women as well--and probably oppose its use by men also.
Quote:The best way to prevent the need for abortions is for women to stay home and knit in the evening when they are single, and when married, they can take measures to prevent pregnancies that would be a financial, or any other type of burden. So, since women do not stay home and knit in the evenings, when single, getting pregnant with an unwanted child does not give a woman, in my opinion, the right to end a life (aka, fetus), in my opinion.
So you are simply opposed to women being sexually active prior to marriage--they should all remain virgins until marriage. You certainly do want to control women's lives and bodies, don't you? You'd rather not even see them as having the choice to be sexually active.
And I don't think many single men would support that idea either since they enjoy their sexual relations with women.
You seem to leave the male partner, who impregnated the woman, totally out of your thinking. Why aren't you demanding that men act responsibly, and use contraception, each and every time they have intercourse, if they don't want a pregnancy to occur? And, if they can't do that, surely you would want men to "stay home and knit in the evenings" wouldn't you? Since when did pregnancy prevention become only the woman's problem? Why does the male partner bear no responsibility for
his behavior?
You also do not live in the 21st century, in the reality of today's world. People are sexually active prior to marriage now, and your wishful thinking that it were otherwise won't change that, and the failure of the programs that promote abstinence only attest to that. You are not addressing a very serious topic--that of unwanted pregnancies and abortion--in anything approximating a serious, well thought out,
realistic way.
All you are offering are your own rather narrow-minded and rigidly moralistic views regarding sexuality, particularly female sexuality. And they all boil down to your attitude that, if women weren't such sexual sluts, abortion wouldn't be a problem. And if those sluts do become pregnant, they should be forced to live with their mistakes and carry those pregnancies to term. And, if they don't want those children after they are born, they should put them in orphanages
run by nuns (who are, of course, not sexually active women), because those are the best people to teach them right from wrong, and, presumably, keep them from making the immoral mistakes their slutty mothers made.
You are all about punishing, and demeaning, and controlling women. Preventing access to abortion is just another way of doing that.
Quote:And, playing with words, like "choice," be it pro, anti, or "her own personal choice," is just rhetoric that hides the reality that a fetus is a life
Whether or not a fetus "is a life", it is not a fully developed or viable human being outside of utero--it has the
potential to become that, but "potential" is not the same as
actual. The woman carrying that fetus is an actual, living human being--and her legal status, and legal rights, cannot, and should not, be reduced to, or put on a par with, that of a fetus that is not yet an independent part of her body so that both are regarded as equals, or, even worse, as you suggest, so that the fetus would have "rights" that trump her choices about controlling
her own body.
Quote:Smart drivers do preventive maintenance on their cars. It prevents accidents.
What "preventive maintainance" should have been done by the approximately 32,000 women who become pregnant as the result of rape every year? And, unless you are very naive, you ought to realize that some of those rapes are marital rapes or incest.
Quote:Still, of the 6.7 million pregnancies in the United States every year, about half are unintended, according to the Guttmacher Institute.
The chance of getting pregnant from one event of unprotected sexual intercourse is 5 percent on average, according to the Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network (RAINN).
And according to research by Holmes and her colleagues published in 1996 in the American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology, that same rate applies to rape victims, though it's tricky to compare these different populations.
"Rape-related pregnancy occurs with significant frequency," the study researchers wrote in their journal article. "It is a cause of many unwanted pregnancies, and is closely linked with family and domestic violence."
In the study, Holmes and her colleagues, followed more than 4,000 American adults over a three-year period. Nationally, they found rape-related pregnancy rate was 5 percent among women of reproductive age, 12 to 45, meaning about 32,000 pregnancies result from rape each year, they concluded. Among 34 cases of rape-related pregnancy that they looked at closely, 32 percent of women maintained the pregnancy and kept the infant, 50 percent underwent an abortion, nearly 6 percent placed the baby up for adoption and nearly 12 percent had a miscarriage
http://www.businessinsider.com/yes-women-can-get-pregnant-from-rape-2012-8#ixzz25KeQiJqF
You aren't "pro-life", you are "anti-choice"--and it's all about your own moralistic and judgmental views regarding female sexuality.
